Sweynforkbeard
Squire
This is fundamentally just a genre issue. Once you outpace the AI, well...
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Endgame = mindless endless war
- Thread starter Taveren
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Squire
thomas13
Regular
Maybe, but I think it's more of a structural issue that needed more time in development to be balanced. It has a lot of features that don't flow together in a cohesive way. Instead of taking that time it was decided it's playable enough and rushed into beta then full release.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
I am sorry. But I just dont buy into the whole "rushed through the door" argument that always pop up whenever there is something people dont like.
I honestly think they probably though the whole "factions staying alive" thing was an ingenious organic solution to the basic lategame problem; that a campaign becomes largely pointless once you reach a certain powerlevel relative to the AI.
I would not be surprised if they were simply taken aback by the fact that people just did not like it.
thomas13
Regular
You're not sorry. Own it. I disagree.
I don't hate that feature. I just think it was poorly executed. The reason people hate it is cause it doesn't make the game challenging it just makes it a nuisance. It's lazy. The AI power level is mostly an illusion. They have infinite funds but they are so limited in what they can do with it. They lack the options of the player because they can't exploit all the same features the player can.
Besides they "fixed" the ability of factions to stay alive and late game still sucks. Late game sucks because the players power level surpasses the AI way too soon. It's so unbalanced. And let's be honest it's not a campaign. It's sandbox with family members. It's a rough draft and nothing close to a finished product. There no way you can convince me that this game is "finished" or was part of some ingenious plan to make the game fun or more playable. That's nonsense.
It's an ambitious idea for a game but it lacks follow through.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
I am going to have to disagree with this too
The problem is not that you surpass the AI too soon. The game is simply too big for the concept.
There is not a damn thing that they can possibly do to make the endgame appealing to anyone but the tiniest minority. It is simply too big, and by extention, too long and repetitive to be digestible to most. What they should really do is just ignore endgame entirely and focus on making the journey there as good as it can get.
saittam
Sergeant
Nah. Because endgame varies for people. To some it´s when you get your first fief. To others when you choose to be ruler.
Some ways to improve it
Nerf Medicine. Soldier don´t survive an axe or a javlin throu the head. Medicine makes them to that. This is a huge problem in endgame battle.
Rebuild the troops. It aint no fun fighting big battles against 500 recruits. Look at the mod De Re Military.
War objectives. That is choosen. We need these lands, that settlement. The carrot could be to add uniqe items, troops or just income from settlements
Let clans come and join you! Skip the chase.
Rebuild or nerf the relation system. As soon one start fighting nobles charm is maxed in no time. Imagine if all skills leveled as fast. Kill a tier 6 soldier and you get 30 skill point.
But i agree that the game is too big.
The player is also deprived of using their skills/strategy in the middle game and forward as you have no means of controlling other parties and armies or setting goals or any meaningful diplomacy. The game is 100% you bulldozing the AI with you own party/army and the fact this works still just further shows the weakness of the AI both in battle and in campaign AI.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
Not really sure how, or if, that is really an issue. At least in terms of the fact that it works.
Concentration of force is an entirely sensible strategy. You have garrisons around to limit the damage that your enemies can potentially do to you. So, there are no particularly good strategic reasons why you would not, or should not, choose to concentrate your forces.
Though, I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to introduce more options to control your factions armies.
saittam
Sergeant
Here is a thing that feels strange to me.
Marry off daughters is a quick way to gain relation to other clans.
Battles and such is usually slow or atleast i think it should be. My post where i gain 300 in relations feels like a bug.
So in other words. Game design went astray if it´s ment to become king when the daughters come to age. Usually one is king or has the option to be king at the first childs second year. Game can be finished before the first child is even of age.
Feels like i am missing something on the path to kingdom.
Marry off daughters is a quick way to gain relation to other clans.
Battles and such is usually slow or atleast i think it should be. My post where i gain 300 in relations feels like a bug.
So in other words. Game design went astray if it´s ment to become king when the daughters come to age. Usually one is king or has the option to be king at the first childs second year. Game can be finished before the first child is even of age.
Feels like i am missing something on the path to kingdom.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
The whole family thing should really be viewed as an optional approach to the game rather than the core of the game. It might bring something to some players.
Frankly, other than straight up fastforwarding, I struggle to see how anyone could possibly bring themselves to play a 20+ year campaign. It would require an absurd amount of both repetitive and wasted actions, on the players part, to stretch it out that long. Seriously, with a 20+ campaign we are talking thousands of battles....
saittam
Sergeant
Battles are the core yes. But marriages should be second. At the time it was huge. It was how peace was often made and alliances. It was a core of politics. Many times more of hostage situation.
One can let the ai fight. I think many do. And the player walks around feif managing. High in charm and one got both 5 in loyality and 5 in security.
Relations with marriages should be the focus after battles. And battles are great in the game.
Rougery and smithing are for me useless features. My game is so modded right now that when i even press smithing the game crash. And i am perfectly fine with it.
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
At its core it is a battlesimulator with some strategic and RP elements sprinkled on. Its not a dynastic game, its not a grand strategy game and it is (most certainly not) a medival merchant simulator. Their are simply much better alternatives to all these genres out there.
Its primary claim to relevance is that you can fight some relatively large battles (Total War) with the twist that you can personally participate in the action. There is simply no point playing this game, over other and better alternatives, if it is something else that you really want out of the game.
My personal view, is that Bannerlord, at least on the forums, get way too much flak for things that are largely immatrial (that includes, the dynastic aspect; its there, people can play with it if they want but it is not fundamental to the game). People simply have unreasonable expectations as to what the game really is.
Anyway, its just an opinion.
Last edited:
This is'nt a valid comparison. hell, why should Movies, Books and Heroic Odyssies ever have an ending as life continues to go on, right? And most of those have interesting dynamics that create different sorts of interesting resolutions.
NoRegretz00
Recruit
This issue is proof that warband>bannerlord,
A game which is so many years older has a far better late game
A game which is so many years older has a far better late game
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
Well, it is shorter at least.
NoRegretz00
Recruit
I still can't believe taleworlds are only now adding kingdom destruction they make such good games with amazing unique concepts but neglect the game upon release
Sweynforkbeard
Squire
It wasnt a neglect. It was a concept that just didnt gain popularity.
NoRegretz00
Recruit
I'm saying they neglect the game when it comes to updates
Antaeus
Squire
Well that depends on the nature of your story doesn't it. Edward Rutherfurd might tell you a story that spans 10,000 years. Isaac Asimov might tell you a story that spans 50,000 years or more. In that context, a hundred years or so in this game is nothing.
And yes, there are in fact novels, movies etc out there that end unsatisfactorily with the lead characters accepting the normalcy of their existence, knowing that their future will just be more of the same. It is a common cynical trope amongst indie films and novels.
So to an extent, your suggestion that books and stories provide the ideal narrative example for this game, is in fact flawed - as there are examples that directly contradict the idea that a classic 'end' is important, or even desired.
Perhaps the lesson of Bannerlord, is in fact a meditation on the futility of human violence, that it begets more violence. and more. and more. without end.
